> So, would you say a negative AP test negates the need for the RSID-semen > test, but a positive AP test calls for further testing with the > RSID-semen test to be conclusive either way? > "johnsonethan95" said "RSID test," which would be the blood test. Does > the RSID test show positive for blood plasma alone? That also seems to > be excreted from the Skene's gland. > --- In forensic-science@yahoogroups.com, Donna Hansen <dhansen@...> > wrote: >> >> Yes we can have semen without spermatozoa. It is those cases where we > are looking for a test that would be specific for semen without sperm. > Back in the day p30 was thought to be specific for semen, now p30 is > found in other body fluids so therefore having a positive result for p30 > (without sperm) does not lend us to a conclusive result of semen. If > you are testing a female's pair of underwear - it could be AP positive > and since p30 is found in female urine the sample could also be p30 > positive. Reading up on the RSID-semen test where it is not testing for > p30 but for semenogelin, which is specific for semen. I have not found > any literature saying that semenogelin is found in other body fluids. > Where we get AP positive those samples are then tested for the presence > of sperm if no sperm is found than we conduct the RSID-semen test and it > those results are positive we conclude Semen was detected on the item. >> >> From: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com > [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com] On Behalf Of John Lloyd Scharf >> Sent: Monday, October 03, 2011 12:44 PM >> To: forensic-science@yahoogroups.com >> Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Wording of Serology Reports >> >> >> >> I do not understand what you are saying. You are switching up terms, >> although I have not seen documentation of false positives. Obviously, >> you can have seminal fluid without spermatozoa. You can get Acid >> Phosphatase (AP) positive with a female from the glands of Bartholin, >> which are analogous to the Cowper's gland in the male, where AP is >> excreted. The AP indicates sexual activity, but the gender of those >> involved is not certain. >> --- In > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om>, Donna Hansen dhansen@ >> wrote: >> > >> > Would you be able to share the information or location about the > false >> positives with the RSID- semen test. >> > >> > From: > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om> >> > [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\ > groups.com>] On Behalf Of johnsonethan95 >> > Sent: Friday, September 30, 2011 1:25 AM >> > To: > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om> >> > Subject: [forensic-science] Re: Wording of Serology Reports >> > >> > >> > >> > RSID test is no better. There is a fair amount of information on > false >> positives from RSID test. Seems like we have run out of options. >> > >> > --- In >> > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ >> om>, Donna Hansen dhansen@ wrote: >> > > >> > > I just wanted to say we were having the same issue with the semen >> cassettes but we were getting false positives with our Seratec p30 > test >> cassettes and were going to switch to the ABAcard. We ended up > switching >> to a semen specific test called RSID-Semen; it tests for the presence > of >> Semenogelin which is only found in semen (as its documentation states >> now just like p30 was specific back in the day). As for your > conclusion >> - we basically conclude the same way except we say "Semen was or was > not >> detected on Item ....". Where Semen was positive but no spermatozoa > were >> detected - we included that information on our report "Semen was >> detected but no spermatozoa were observed". I cannot really address >> option 4 but we were close (before we started using RSID-Semen) to > using >> an inconclusive result. >> > > >> > > Do you do a preliminary color test i.e. acid phosphatase - if you > do >> are those results taking into consideration as to how you conclude > your >> semen result? >> > > >> > > From: >> > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ >> om> >> > [mailto:forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\ > groups.com><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoo\ >> groups.com>] On Behalf Of labgirl28 >> > > Sent: Wednesday, September 28, 2011 10:57 PM >> > > To: >> > forensic-science@yahoogroups.com<mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ > om><mailto:forensic-science%40yahoogroups.c\ >> om> >> > > Subject: [forensic-science] Wording of Serology Reports >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > My laboratory is on the cusp of revamping our Serology SOP and the >> way that we word some of our serology testing on our final reports. I >> know that the "word of the day" when it comes to ISO, which is where >> most of us are headed, is TRANSPARENCY. Nothing would make me happier >> and more comfortable as a forensic scientist to be able to go to > court, >> clearly state what tests were used, and openly show/explain their >> limitations. Anyone that has read about the North Carolina debaucle >> understands that a scientist's report, despite their best intentions > AND >> following proper protocol, can be grossly misinterpreted without them >> personally being present to explain it and in turn, ruin their career > in >> forensics. >> > > Anyhow, several of my coworkers are facing some resistance by >> administration when it comes to how we report out semen testing and > what >> "weight" we give to these tests in regard to probative value. Let me >> also say that we were getting false (+)'s with ABAcard psa on known >> semen-free samples. Their was some discussion about temperature, pH, > and >> viscosity issues that could cause these results. Due to these issues, > we >> switched to Seratec's product. I will also state that our DNA section >> does tell the end of the story many times by stating whether foreign > DNA >> is present in our swabbings and cuttings which is a small comfort to > us >> serologists, but that sometimes, the mere reporting of semen being >> present is all it takes for a jury to convict, even if DNA is not >> obtained. I am trying to poll other forensic laboratories to see how > you >> guys report out the following testing so that I can attend our next >> brainstorming meeting with some possible suggestions: >> > > 1) Spermatozoa identified >> > > 2) No Spermatozoa identified, (+) p30 result >> > > 3) No Spermatozoa identified, (-) p30 result >> > > 4) No Spermatozoa identified, p30 result(test line intensity is >> lighter than internal standard of 4 ng/mL) >> > > >> > > For 1), we currently write "Semen was identified on.....". >> > > For 2), we currently write "Semen was identified on.....". >> > > For 3), we currently write "No semen was found on....". >> > > For 4), we currently write "Tests for the presence of semen were >> inconclusive.". >> > > >> > > Sadly, our current protocol dictates that if our test line is (+) > or >> less intense than the internal standard, we must repeat the test with >> another p30 card of the same lot # (I don't see this as sound > scientific >> practice). If the second test is also (+), we follow 1) wording as >> above. If the second test is (-), we are told to write "No semen was >> found on..." (I don't agree with this.) I know that Seratec is very >> sensitive. The manufacturer clearly shows examples of fainter lines >> being still interpreted as (+) for p30. I also know that the test > line, >> results being based on a bell curve of concentration, may be fainter >> because there's low quantities of p30 OR very high quantities, >> approaching the high-dose hook effect level which would give you a > false >> (-). >> > > Do any other laboratories interpret these faint lines as anything >> other than (+)? Does your lab call this (+) for p30, a component of >> semen OR (+) for semen? >> > > >> > > Do your reports give disclaimers about p30 being found in low > levels >> of other body fluids? >> > > >> > > Lastly, does your laboratory consider p30 testing to be >> sensitive/specific enough to be called a confirmatory test for semen? >> Ours has for years and doesn't want to even consider backing off on >> report wording to view it as presumptive, which many of us feel is >> imperative. There was some talk of describing it as "indicitive," but >> that is what the poor soul in North Carolina used and we all know how >> that turned out for him! We're all of the "worst-case scenario" > mindset >> and fear one day, major consequences could befall our laboratory or us >> analysts though we are following SOP as set forth and attempting to >> remain subordinate to our superiors. >> > > I know I've rambled for a lengthy spell here, but we've got a > burden >> on our shoulders that needs resolution. Misinterpretation of data is > not >> an acceptable answer for me. I don't see anywhere on Seratec's website >> where they consider any type of line in the Test area to be anything > but >> (+). That is the bottom line. My signature on a laboratory report > means >> something to me and I don't want it to lose its value. >> > > >> > > >> > > >> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > >> > >> > >> > >> > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > >> >> >> >> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] >> > > > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed] > > > > ------------------------------------ > > To subscribe send a blank e-mail to: > forensic-science-subscribe@yahoogroups.com > To unsubscribe send a blank e-mail to: > forensic-science-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com > > Group home page: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/forensic-science > From the home page you can search the list archives. It also includes > links to forensic science sites and allows you to modify your account > settings.Yahoo! Groups Links > > > >